Opinion
Column

Why city needs an integrity commish

On Sept. 20, Kingston city council, in a 7-6 vote, decided to amend a bylaw to permit IN8 Developments to build a 15-storey building -- seven storeys higher than the official plan. The vote was controversial, with both opponents and supporters arguing that the decision will have significant consequences for our downtown.

Next week, council will entertain a motion calling for an integrity commissioner and, in the interests of a clear process, this is an important decision.

An integrity commissioner will settle the debate about whether our elected councillors voted according to the public and not their own interest. According to the Whig-Standard, Coun. Adam Candon, a real estate agent, had a website that until a few days before the vote advertised the condominium. Does his professional work put him in a conflict of interest? Candon did not believe it did.

According to Section 5 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the obligation is on the part of the councillor to declare a conflict. And therein lies a problem. In this case, Candon or his legal advice persuaded him that voting on the amending a bylaw to build a 15-storey building did not affect his "direct or indirect pecuniary interest"? If it did, he had an obligation to exempt himself from the vote. I have no doubt that many, if not most, councillors exercise careful judgment when they decide to declare a conflict. And I have no reason to doubt that Candon exercised careful judgment in deciding that he was not in a conflict of interest. But the problem is this is not a matter that should rest with an individual councillor. It needs to rest with an independent office that takes that decision away from the councillor.

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which governs conflict of interest, is a meagre six pages and may not provide adequate guidance for city legal staff or councillors to be prudent in their decision-making. But more to the point, at the end of the day, it's up to the councillor to decide if he or she is in a conflict of interest. But it shouldn't be.

In Toronto, the city has an integrity commissioner who is an arm's-length, independent officer appointed by council. He or she provides advice to council on conflict of interest matters. (Toronto named Queen's University emeritus professor and Kingston resident David Mullan as its first integrity commissioner.) If Kingston had an integrity commissioner, the decision about whether Candon was in conflict would not lie with him but an independent and neutral umpire.

In addition to reporting on conflict of interest, the integrity commissioner has the power to investigate matters that citizens raise about city council. This can be about personal behaviour, as was the case with Rob Ford, or whether a mayor gave preferential treatment to a member of his campaign, an allegation made about John Tory that was found to be false. The real value of this office is that, in making its rulings, it educates the public by publishing reports that provide transparency and reasons for actions, something that does not exist now. We have no idea why Candon believed that he was not acting in conflict of interest and, indeed, he has no legal obligation to explain his actions.

The idea of having an integrity commissioner is not new to Kingston. The previous council in Kingston voted 7-6 to proceed to hire one, but, in a unanimous 12-0 vote, this was "swiftly shelved by the new council," according to media reports.

And I think that's unfortunate.

The flaw at that heart of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is to assume that it's OK for a councillor to make a decision about his or her conflict of interest. In a modern, democratic system, this seems positively archaic.

Jonathan Rose is an associate professor of political studies at Queen's University.